We have reduced support for legacy browsers.

What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.

What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.

U.S. Presidential Election
page 4
(locked)

> *Originally posted by **[issendorf](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=3#posts-6247972):***
>
> Ryan is curbing future growth, Obama is cutting to help fund the ACA.
You are right on with that statement and it isn’t a big secret as that information can be found all over the net. I think what is happening is these posters are listening to the media which is acting totally liberal with the news. Obama cannot run on his economics, because he has screwed the pooch on it. His policies did not work and given four more years we are going to experience more of the same with some additional situations. If he gets a second term we will lose more credit rating and possibly become bankrupt.

> *Originally posted by **[issendorf](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=3#posts-6247972):***
> > Sigh. People are dying in Syria. Americans are people. Add issendorf logic: Americans are dying in Syria.
>
> Yes, because that’s really the logical argument I was making.
You claimed “that the president is cutting 700 Billion from current seniors.” I asked for proof and you made the argument that Seniors are affected by Medicare and Medicare is being spent less on, then you added issendorf logic and implied that seniors are the ones being “cut from”. This is pretty much the same false logic that i show above. Seniors are one group that can be affected by Medicare, but changes to Medicare do not automatically effect them.
> > Medicare does not just effect Seniors. So far i have seen source that point out that the “cuts” do not “cut” from service being provided to Seniors but instead cut on payments to under performing service providers.
>
> [http://papers.nber.org/tmp/73509-w16859.pdf](http://papers.nber.org/tmp/73509-w16859.pdf)
>
> They say that cuts in Medicare could (not will, I submit, but opens the potential) lead to a decrease in care.
Could? Yes perhaps. Quite different from the claim they will. Not only that in the paper the effect is indirect, by the reduction in quality of the service providers and it only seems to cover a small part of the 716 Billion, those effecting Hospitals.
Now sadly i can´t read the whole paper, but i get the feeling that the paper only compares the current lowering of spending to the lowering of spending/cuts under BBA1997 in a very abstract way. From the sources i have seen so far the new cuts/penalties to service providers are based on the quality of service they provide. Lower quality, lower payments. This adds a capitalistic flavor. Unlike the BBA 1997 smaller size, smaller payments.
Since lower qualities means lower payments, measures that lower cost but also lower quality are much less attractive.
> > No. Though i can perhaps see that me forgetting to use the questions mark might mislead you. It was supposed to be a question. I am highlighting that you cna´t both have the cookie and eat it.
>
> If you refuse to acknowledge the fact and read his budget that passed the House that exempts anyone over the age of 55, there is nothing more I can really do.
The Ryan budget i have seen does not include any provision that excepts anyone currently older than 55. The thing you could do is actually bring a direct quote to the plan where it actually says what you claim.
But please notice that you have additionally set the Bar impossibly high with your last post. Since you seem to set indirect effects (such as service providers lowering quality due to cuts) equal to effecting Seniors. There no longer seems any fucking way for Ryan to pull this off. Because it would mean that his plan would not be allowed to touch service providers.
Important add on. I think i have no found the source of this uhm misunderstanding. Its seems your confusing Ryans Budget plan(the one that passed the house and includes the 700 Billion cuts) with his voucher system plan which indeed is not for people currently(!) older than 55.
> > Your claim was that opposed to Ryan´s method the current rout of Washington seems to lead to no Medicare at all. Does not make much sense if he is not making any more cuts than Obama. Either Obama is actually preparing to keep Medicare from becoming bankrupt or Ryan is also not doing whats necessary.
>
> Ryan is curbing future growth, Obama is cutting to help fund the ACA. It’s really not that difficult of a concept to grasp.
Sigh. Both are curbing future growth. The resulting lowering in future Budget expenses in fact reduces the future deficit. These are the facts. It does not get much easier than this.
Now comes the part that gets a bit complicated to understand. When ACA was being implemented cost neutrality was a very important to get enough votes. So the reduction in Medicare spending was counted against the new(!) predicted ACA costs. This is just an (ac-)counting trick and not actually using money saved on Medicare to fund ACA.
Now your not gonna believe this, so i suggest you might want to check upon some Republican (friendly) Budget estimates on ACA. Because the Republicans rightfully(?) called out this trick which uses one cookie(spending cut) to keep(reduce deficit) and eat(neutralize costs of ACA) at the same time. And Republican (friendly) Budget estimates do not include the Medicare savings when ever they show how much the ACA will increase Debt.
Now could you follow me and do you still think “It´s not really that difficult to grasp”?

> Important add on. I think i have no found the source of this uhm misunderstanding. Its seems your confusing Ryans Budget plan(the one that passed the house and includes the 700 Billion cuts) with his voucher system plan which indeed is not for people currently(!) older than 55.
And so I have – thanks for clarifying it.

John, the reduction of Medicare by Obama had nothing to do with quality of care. He took the 716 Billion to finance the healthcare plan he has saddled the country with. His healthcare plan will bankrupt our country, even if he gets the first year of financing. It is estimated his bill will increase in cost every year as more and more are forced to use it. From what I have heard from different sources is Obama plans to incorporate both Medicare and Medicaid into his Obamacare. This will affect the elderly and the poor.
I still have not heard about the voucher system you are talking about. Have you got a source about that?
I see my above statement is already understood. I do believe with the disdain for Obamacare there will be a push to repeal it. Even the doctors I have talked to dislike it.

“Even worse, President Barack Obama and his administration seem to view budgeting as just one more political maneuver. His efforts have been so completely unserious that the President’s 2012 budget was rejected by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate. And three weeks ago, when Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-South Carolina, sponsored a budget proposal based on Obama’s 2013 budget plan, it lost in the House by a vote of 414-0.
That’s right, not a single member of Congress cast a vote in favor of Obama’s last two budgets. That is a stunning repudiation of his leadership. What it really represents is a total abdication of leadership.
Democrats in the Senate have all the votes they need to pass a real budget and show the American people their plan for today and the future. But they refuse, because they don’t want to be held accountable. They would rather cut backroom deals that hide the details of their plans, and then take political pot shots at Republicans who have had the courage to produce and vote for a serious budget."

The problem with that claim is that they didn’t put forward the President’s budget; they put forth a mockery loosely based on it.
Trying to claim they are the same is disingenuous, and trying to claim that the lack of Congressional support for the mockery is an indication of anything else is ridiculous.
I mean, unless you can show that they are the same. I wouldn’t suggest it; Obama’s budget plan is around 40 times longer than the mockery.

> *Originally posted by **[SanAntonioSpurs](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=4#posts-6255650):***
>
> Even worse, President Barack Obama and his administration seem to view budgeting as just one more political maneuver. His efforts have been so completely unserious that the President’s 2012 budget was rejected by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate. And three weeks ago, when Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-South Carolina, sponsored a budget proposal based on Obama’s 2013 budget plan, it lost in the House by a vote of 414-0.
>
> That’s right, not a single member of Congress cast a vote in favor of Obama’s last two budgets. That is a stunning repudiation of his leadership. What it really represents is a total abdication of leadership.
>
> Democrats in the Senate have all the votes they need to pass a real budget and show the American people their plan for today and the future. But they refuse, because they don’t want to be held accountable. They would rather cut backroom deals that hide the details of their plans, and then take political pot shots at Republicans who have had the courage to produce and vote for a serious budget.
Also, since Obama has been president we have not had a budget pass the democratically controlled Senate. The government is required by the Constitution to have a budget passed each year.
There is a group of statisticians our of Boulder, Colorado who have predicted the elections accurately for the last several elections. It is a detailed study that even predicts which states each candidate will win. Their accuracy is phenomenal. They predict Romney will be the next president with the present model. They will tweak it one more time at the end of September.
[http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2012/08/study-conducted-in-liberaltown-usa.html](http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2012/08/study-conducted-in-liberaltown-usa.html)

> *Originally posted by **[Ketsy](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=4#posts-6257196):***
>
> The problem with that claim is that they didn’t put forward the President’s budget; they put forth a mockery loosely based on it.
>
> Trying to claim they are the same is disingenuous, and trying to claim that the lack of Congressional support for the mockery is an indication of anything else is ridiculous.
>
> I mean, unless you can show that they are the same. I wouldn’t suggest it; Obama’s budget plan is around 40 times longer than the mockery.
First of all, the House of Representatives is the originator of the budget according to the Constitution, not the president. Obama does not control the house or what is in the budget. Right now we have no budget and the spending Obama is doing is by decree.

I’m not sure what you’re responding to, because that doesn’t seem relevant.
SanAntonioSpurs claimed that “Obama’s budget” was defeated without any votes in both the senate and the house. I countered that claim by saying it wasn’t his budget, but a loose mockery.
What exactly is your relevance?

> *Originally posted by **[SanAntonioSpurs](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=4#posts-6255650):***
>
> Even worse, President Barack Obama and his administration seem to view budgeting as just one more political maneuver. His efforts have been so completely unserious that the President’s 2012 budget was rejected by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate. And three weeks ago, when Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-South Carolina, sponsored a budget proposal based on Obama’s 2013 budget plan, it lost in the House by a vote of 414-0.
>
> That’s right, not a single member of Congress cast a vote in favor of Obama’s last two budgets. That is a stunning repudiation of his leadership. What it really represents is a total abdication of leadership.
>
> Democrats in the Senate have all the votes they need to pass a real budget and show the American people their plan for today and the future. But they refuse, because they don’t want to be held accountable. They would rather cut backroom deals that hide the details of their plans, and then take political pot shots at Republicans who have had the courage to produce and vote for a serious budget.
Spur, this is not to mention we have not had a budget since Obama has been in office. Constitutionally we are required to pass a budget every year and the Senate has blocked it every year. The first two years of his presidency I don’t think the democratically controlled house didn’t even propose one.
There is a group in Boulder, Colorado that has predicted the past several elections accurately. They have what they call a model they use and have called the elections pretty close to include which state will go with which candidate. This is a link that talks about this.
[http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2012/08/study-conducted-in-liberaltown-usa.html](http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2012/08/study-conducted-in-liberaltown-usa.html)

Spur, this is not to mention we have not had a budget since Obama has been in office. Constitutionally we are required to pass a budget every year and the Senate has blocked it every year. The first two years of his presidency I don’t think the democratically controlled house didn’t even propose one.
There is a group in Boulder, Colorado that has predicted the past several elections accurately. They have what they call a model they use and have called the elections pretty close to include which state will go with which candidate. This is a link that talks about this.
[http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2012/08/study-conducted-in-liberaltown-usa.html](http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2012/08/study-conducted-in-liberaltown-usa.html)

> *Originally posted by **[Ketsy](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=4#posts-6257261):***
>
> I’m not sure what you’re responding to, because that doesn’t seem relevant.
>
> SanAntonioSpurs claimed that “Obama’s budget” was defeated without any votes in both the senate and the house. I countered that claim by saying it wasn’t his budget, but a loose mockery.
>
> What exactly is your relevance?
I haven’t been able to show my response as it keeps deleting it.
Edit: Ok this one seems to pass the auto-delete thingy.
The House of Representatives is the part of the government where all spending bills originate. The first two years of the Obama presidency, he had control of both houses and they didn’t pass any budget. Constitutionally a budget must be passed every year. In the last two years the republican led house proposed budgets but they were blocked in the senate. Obama can suggest a budget, but it is not up to him to tell the congress what the budget is going to be. He has been spending and borrowing with dictates because of the lack of a budget. Sadly, the house is letting this happen.
I had a link but that may be what is deleting my posts. It was a link to a group of statisticians who use a model to predict the winner of the presidential race. They have been accurate for the last several elections and not only predict the winning candidate, but the states they will win. They are out of Boulder, Colorado. I guess I won’t give the link since I don’t have it now. :( They are predicting Romney as the winner.

> *Originally posted by **[SanAntonioSpurs](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=4#posts-6255650):***
>
> [http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/29/opinion/johnson-budget/index.html](http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/29/opinion/johnson-budget/index.html)
Great we now know that Spurs can copy paste. Since such spaming does not deserve a greater investment of time, than just copy pasting. But i will at least name my source.
> *[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/)*
>
> The federal budget doesn’t get enacted the way other laws do. The process starts with the president submitting his budget request to Congress early in the year. That voluminous document is partly a presidential wish list, but it also gives Congress a framework.
>
> “The ‘PresBud,’ as it is called, forms the basis of the fiscal year budget that starts the following October,” according to this post from the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.
>
> In Congress, the House and Senate have budget committees tasked with creating concurrent budget resolutions, using the president’s budget as a guide. As Taxpayers for Common Sense wrote, “The legislation they draft is for Congressional use only: it doesn’t go to the President, it isn’t law, it just helps Congress keep its budgetary ducks in a row.”
> Such votes are taken “just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party,” said Patrick Louis Knudsen, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation.
>
> ………..
>
> “Usually it’s brought up by the opposition party because they generally anticipate that a president’s budget won’t get very much support especially if it has controversial elements to it,” he said.
>
> Other experts agree. Said Steve Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense: “That was pure political theater and was done to score rhetorical points.”
>
> And Norman Ornstein, a scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, “it doesn’t mean a damn thing. It’s only a symbolic gesture.”

> The House of Representatives is the part of the government where all spending bills originate. The first two years of the Obama presidency, he had control of both houses and they didn’t pass any budget. Constitutionally a budget must be passed every year. In the last two years the republican led house proposed budgets but they were blocked in the senate. Obama can suggest a budget, but it is not up to him to tell the congress what the budget is going to be. He has been spending and borrowing with dictates because of the lack of a budget. Sadly, the house is letting this happen.
So what I’m reading is this:
Not only is SanAntonioSpurs point nonsense, but it is also not even Obama’s job to make a budget. The entire problem is the Congress.
Which is nothing new to me. I’ve been frustrated with them since the debt ceiling bullshit.

> *Originally posted by **[Ketsy](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=4#posts-6257625):***
> > The House of Representatives is the part of the government where all spending bills originate. The first two years of the Obama presidency, he had control of both houses and they didn’t pass any budget. Constitutionally a budget must be passed every year. In the last two years the republican led house proposed budgets but they were blocked in the senate. Obama can suggest a budget, but it is not up to him to tell the congress what the budget is going to be. He has been spending and borrowing with dictates because of the lack of a budget. Sadly, the house is letting this happen.
>
> So what I’m reading is this:
>
> Not only is SanAntonioSpurs point nonsense, but it is also not even Obama’s job to make a budget. The entire problem is the Congress.
>
> Which is nothing new to me. I’ve been frustrated with them since the debt ceiling bullshit.
NO, Spurs post is correct in what he said. I just added to it I hope. Obama is allowed to submit a budget of what he wants, but he does not have the power to make the budget the law of the land. The house is the originator of spending legislation. they can look at Obama’s budget and put parts of it in the one they originate, but it is their constitutional job to make the actual budget. This spending must then be approved by both houses. The senate is refusing to pass a budget. I’m guessing, without a budget they feel they can keep asking the house for extensions and go on, but that is unconstitutional. I can look this up and give you references if you want.
Yes, that was a real butt-burner for me too.

> *Originally posted by **[Ketsy](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=4#posts-6257625):***
>
> The entire problem is the Congress.
It has been that way for many, many decades Ketsy. Until all participants can grow up and stop acting like kindergarteners, the whole process is deeply flawed. Sometimes I think Kongregate’s OT has more collective maturity than our highest level of government.

I’ll try one more time to get my point across, jhco50, but I’m losing interest in trying.
My interpretation of SanAntonioSpurs’ post is that the President, Barack Obama, submitted a budget to congress. Congress then voted it down, first in the house, then later in the senate. From this, his source goes on to claim that this reflects poorly on Obama, because his efforts are “completely unserious” and that this is a “stunning repudiation of his leadership.”
I replies that this never happened, because Obama never submitted anything under his name. You actually reinforced this when you said that Obama can’t force a budget on them. The sources I read implied that both of these “budgets” were made by Republicans who claimed they “based it on Obama’s budget.” I added that the budget plan they put forth is roughly one fortieth the size, and can’t reflect too accurately what his plans were anyway.
My entire point is that SAS post is ridiculous and wrong. Based on JohnnyBeGood’s politfact link, I’m inclined to believe the entire point is political posturing, as the link claims.
Finally, if there isn’t a budget, then the problem is Congress because, as you claimed, the President doesn’t have the ability to force a budget. Therefore, this isn’t even something that should be brought up in a thread about the presidential election.

Ok Ketsy. Yes. Obama submitted a budget. He is allowed to do this. Yes, congress told him it was irresponsible and full of increased spending and tax increases. Congress could have accepted it and said yes we like it, but they didn’t. Both the house and senate denied it, not voted it down. There is a difference. Yes it was stated that it was, “completely disingenuous and that it was a stunning repudiation of his leadership.” This it was. But Obama does not originate a budget to be voted on. That is the job of the House. I know Obama would like to think he is the king, but he isn’t.
I can tell you now that none of the republicans would follow the presidents recommendations. A democrat maybe, but they dismissed it as well. I don’t know for sure, but I believe the house put forth Ryan’s budget plan. Yes, if there is not a budget, it is a big problem. The president can request money to keep the current spending going and the house has been agreeing and passing these spending resolutions. It is against the Constitution to do this and the government should have been shut down. First of all, politifact is not all that honest in it’s opinions. Second, in this case they are probably right.
Yes, it is a problem of the congress. In this case the president can only persuade his democrats to deny it, but ultimately it is the congress at fault here. The house has been submitting budgets and the senate has been voting them down.

> Ok Ketsy. Yes. Obama submitted a budget. He is allowed to do this. Yes, congress told him it was irresponsible and full of increased spending and tax increases. Congress could have accepted it and said yes we like it, but they didn’t. Both the house and senate denied it, not voted it down. There is a difference. Yes it was stated that it was, “completely disingenuous and that it was a stunning repudiation of his leadership.” This it was. But Obama does not originate a budget to be voted on. That is the job of the House. I know Obama would like to think he is the king, but he isn’t.> I replies that **this never happened** , because **Obama never submitted anything** under his name. You actually reinforced this when you said that Obama can’t force a budget on them. The **sources I read implied that both of these “budgets” were made by Republicans who claimed they “based it on Obama’s budget.”** I added that the budget plan they put forth is roughly one fortieth the size, and can’t reflect too accurately what his plans were anyway.

> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=4#posts-6257442):***
>
> The House of Representatives is the part of the government where all spending bills originate. The first two years of the Obama presidency, he had control of both houses and they didn’t pass any budget.
No Obama did not have control of both houses. The Democrats as a group had a majority, which means they(and not the president) only have control if they act together. This is a very important distinction, since in America the President Candidates are neither elected/appointed directly by the Parties nor does the President gain control over his Party nor do the Parties have much control over the elected congress Members that belong to their Party.
So lets see the only job of the President in this matter is to summit(not purpose) his own Budget request to the congress. As far as i know he has done so. This Budget request is his PERSONAL WISH LIST.
Everything else, from drafting actual budget resolutions(the congressional wish list) to seeing that they are voted on and if necessary finding a compromise is the job the House and Senate. At the end since its no Bill(but just a wish list) the President does not even get any say and its not signed by him.
All this actually shows is that the elected Democrats are/were not very unified in political agenda concerning the making of Budget resolutions.
> Obama can suggest a budget, but it is not up to him to tell the congress what the budget is going to be. He has been spending and borrowing with dictates because of the lack of a budget. Sadly, the house is letting this happen.
Wrong. A congressional Budget resolution is not an actual allocation of money. Its no Bill and thus not a binding law. The actual allocation of money is done with actual congressional spending bills. Guess who gets to make and vote on these and has been doing so many times through out the last 3 years.